Guild Progress Goals

I figured I should take the temperature as to what people are thinking would be a good system for evaluating guild progress during the competition. The names of each system aren't particularly descriptive, but I'm not very creative. In any case, this poll is not meant to be determinative - the results of this poll ought not be the final say, as none of the systems are fleshed out to a point of reasonable detail yet - the purpose of the poll is merely to see which way the community is leaning and hopefully inspire discussion on the subject that will aid us in finding a good path to take.

All or Nothing
Basically, this is the system as it has been - the only evaluation would occur at the very end of the competition and would be based solely on the final product itself.


The motivation for both of the following models is the idea that having a deadline that is a long way off inspires procrastination and results in failure. Thus, both seek to set shorter deadlines in order to encourage sustained focus on the project.

Focused Progress Goals
The idea for this is inspired both by the desire for shorter deadlines and also to encourage collaboration on as many aspects of the project as possible. The idea would be to set up goals with respect to very specific areas of importance, such as character development, plot, mapping, eventing, database work, and dialogue, while allowing other more pervasive or time-consuming aspects such as scripting and resources to be done throughout. Under such a form, the primary tool of measurement would be progress, rather than content, and the judging would be determined on how substantially complete the area of focus is by the end of the deadline. There would, of course, be freedom to change any aspects that have already been completed, and also some members could work on other aspects at any time if the current area of focus is one on which they do not feel they would be useful. Since the measurement is progress, and not content, it is capable of objective assessment and would be assessed by the moderator of the competition. Thus, not all of the goals would necessarily need to be released publicly in respect to concerns about spoilers and other issues. A model breakdown of such a system, without any particular well thought out values, would be:
  

Character Development - 1 week - 5%
  Plot - 2 weeks - 25%
  Initial Database setup - 1 week - 5%
  Mapping - 3 weeks - 25%
  Eventing + Dialogue - 3 weeks - 30%
  Balancing - 1 week - 10%

The judgement of the finalized project would then be open to a community poll on content alone, and the final score of the project would be based on a weighted average of the progress determination and the results of the community poll.

Content-based Goals
The impetus of this system would be to allow the guilds more freedom in how they choose to progress with their project even while setting short-term deadlines. Like the Focussed goal system, it would require progress to be shown in the interim of the project, however these requirements would be more cohesive and not exclusively limited to particular areas. Further, the judgements would be based on community polls of content rather than on an objective measurement of progress. As Zylos wrote,

Instead of having set deadlines and penalties though, perhaps we can have competitive judgings of whatever teasers and info the guilds release on set dates? Like, one week having the guilds present a basic outline of a non-spoiler story and any concept art they have like we did for a teasers last year, and the next week we show off maps or possibly a playable demo. The guilds agree to release certain pieces of info, and each week we have the community vote for which one they like better thus far.

The final evaluation could be worth 100% under this model, or we could choose to give some weight to the interim judgments - I don't think it is a matter integral to the system as a whole, though it would need to be decided if we went with this system.


Also, if anyone thinks my description is not doing justice to one of the proposed systems, feel free to mention it and I will refine the post to take into account the valid issues raised. Again, I stress that this poll is not meant to be the final decision, but merely as a marker of the current community sentiment and to inspire discussion that will hopefully enable us to make a real decision on the issue at some point in the near future. Thus, you will notice there is no time limit on this poll and you can change your vote at any time if someone makes a compelling argument in favour of a system you did not originally choose.

Content-based goals sounds like a good system to me.

I agree the first encourages procrastination, and the second one just doesn't sound fun, seems more "chore-y".

So definitely the 3rd.

Focused progress all the way. If we don't hold people to time limits, procrastination will kill both projects. I think that's what killed BAG, not sure about what happened to the other guild.

I kind of really like the Content-based goals idea. I don't really mind the first idea either, I just like the 3rd one best. I don't really like the 2nd idea. I mean, I don't really see any other kind of model for the chart that you quoted from yourself. I think it would end up being that order, but just different time-limits and grades. However, my problem is that no one can do anything besides the writers for like the first week or so. I mean, other guild members can contribute ideas and things to the writers, but the mappers can't map anything, eventers can't event, artists can't get resources, etc. Also, I'm not saying that those people can't actually do those things while the writers are writing, but I feel like with the 3rd idea, the mappers can show off some conceptual map ideas to give the guild members a feel for the style, same with the artists. Things like that, that way they're still doing something instead of being bored and sticking to such a strict schedule.

Besides, the 3rd option is basically the 2nd option but better. I mean, if you're going to release a set amount of information and be graded on each release, each guild would obviously have to set up a structured schedule pre-release. That structured schedule would be the 2nd option portion. (Minus that part where we all get graded at the end on the whole product.)

Edit: To make a more specific example (Or maybe this is a new option altogether), I'm going to use Zylos' quote.

Instead of having set deadlines and penalties though, perhaps we can have competitive judgings of whatever teasers and info the guilds release on set dates? Like, one week having the guilds present a basic outline of a non-spoiler story and any concept art they have like we did for a teasers last year, and the next week we show off maps or possibly a playable demo. The guilds agree to release certain pieces of info, and each week we have the community vote for which one they like better thus far.

So the first release of information would be the storyline and concept art. So then the guild leader/s would set up a schedule similar to the 2nd option but instead it would be 'release-specific' instead of a schedule that plans the whole game. So for instance the first schedule would be like:
   Story Ideas -
   Basic Plot -
   Character Ideas -
   Plot development - 
   Spoilers (Plot twists)-
   Character Development -
   Concept Art -
So all that would be set up for the first release as Zylos suggests.
Then the next release in Zylos, example would be Maps and or Playable Demo. So for instance this is the next schedule for that release:
   Title Screens-
   Splash Screens-
   Map Ideas-
   Resources-
   Compile Resources-
   Mapping-
   Dialog-
   Eventing-
   Final Mapping (demo)-
   Final Eventing (demo)-
That would be like the 2nd release. I don't think that it should happen literally 1 week after the previous release since this portion is pretty heavy.
Also, there should be a very broadly based schedule that encompasses all these release dates. Like, the Title Screens and Resource Ideas and all those kinds of things don't need to be done after the first release, those should just be things the guild is thinking of all the time and while creating the plot. I just threw them in with the 2nd release since they are important.

Anyways, I hope I made some of this clear. Like I said before, this might be a 4th Idea. Or just a better explanation of what I thought the 3rd Idea is.

The evaluation should take place at the end. Guilds should have total control over how their goals are organized, and what their goals are. Guild leaders can set the goals for their guild. This is a basic idea that gives the guilds freedom to do things in a way that they think is best.

I'm for Option 2 myself

@Irock - it's also the reason why the guilds failed last time. People procrastinate when they know that nothing has to be submitted until three months from now (seriously, when was the last time you wrote an essay even a week in advance of the due date), and a guild leader who pushes them too hard too early will just be viewed as a dick. Having a director like that really only works when people are being paid, but this is all voluntary, and sometimes it can help to have authorities other than the guild leader forcing you to do something. Otherwise, people will get angry at the guild leader and things won't get done. You can't have slavedrivers in a voluntary competition - it has not worked before, and it will never work.

@graf - I don't really see option 3 as fulfilling the same goals as option 2 at all - for one thing, it is easy to put together a good teaser without having any real goal for the finished project or without setting any substantial plot out - fifteen minutes of gameplay is fifteen minutes of gameplay, and even that much is only if we go as far as to require demos. It may just be three maps, two characters and a sketch of a plot that is necessary to put together a good text teaser. Thus, I don't see option 3 as requiring substantial progress at all, just superficial progress. That, I think, is the main problem with option 2, as the goals are too low and it doesn't really solve the problem of procrastination.

Aside from which, option 2 encourages collaboration, whereas option 3 does not. Option 3 is very much, you guys go do mapping, you guys do eventing, you guys do story and we'll all meet together in 2 weeks. Never mind that the mapping guys make a bunch of snow maps while the story guys decide the entire story is to take place in a desert. I think by forcing substantial completion of certain key elements to begin with, it not only gives a sense of direction to the project but allows for members to invest themselves and become familiar with other aspects of the project and thus promote coherency. Also, I don't see story development, in particular, as requiring that ONLY story people work on it. Story people can handle the details sure, but having ideas from all the team members can only make the game better and also give the members some investment in the project itself, rather than just, for instance, making random maps because the guild leader ordered you to without caring at all for the story.

Further, there is nothing restricting mapping team members or resource fetchers from performing their tasks throughout, especially if they aren't good for anything else. If anything, they will benefit from the stricter schedule because if character development and story must be finished within three weeks of the start date, then they know exactly what work they will have to do and they can do it right away, rather than just getting the rest of the plot two weeks before the contest's completion and having to scramble to make the new maps for the snow area that had never even been contemplated before.

I actually don't see very many similarities between Option 2 and Option 3. If anything, Option 3 is almost akin to Option 1, and I suspect it would be subject to the same problems.


Why are my posts so long? Damn you English training

I was just using Zylos' quote as an example. I didn't mean at all to say that each guild would have to create demo at some point for a goal or that it would be the second goal.

Also, I don't see much similarity between options 2 and 3 either, I was just saying that I felt like option 3 had option 2 inside of it. Figure that option 2 has one big release which is the finished game in the end, whereas option 3 has many smaller releases up to the big release. So each small release would require a schedule and that schedule was what I was making the connection to option 2 with.

I just view option 3 as more community friendly for those who aren't involved in the guilds. However, I don't like that each release would be voted on. I don't like that at all. I'd much rather prefer to be required to make some sort of release periodically strictly for entertainment and information.

Also, I don't see how option 2 encourages more collaboration than option 3. (Or maybe I'm assuming this incorrectly and you mean 'option 3' as in the one in the first post whereas I'm referring to the 'option 3' that I was making up in the edit of my last post.) If you mean option 3 from the first post then yeah, I guess option 2 does encourage better collaboration, but what I was talking about in my edit from my last post is no different from option 2. To better put it, my edit is a long-winded way of saying 'lets add required release goals/teasers to option 2 that aren't graded by the community and are instead released for information and entertainment purposes to the community'.

I also agreed with you that members that aren't apart of the writing team shouldn't be doing nothing and that they have just as much say in the plot as the writers do. Writers add details and things as the guild as a whole comes up with the basic plot and helps refine. I mentioned something similar in my edit.

I hadn't read your edit when I was making my reply. I'll read it tomorrow and respond then - I'm going to bed now.

o lol. okie.

@Irock - it's also the reason why the guilds failed last time. People procrastinate when they know that nothing has to be submitted until three months from now (seriously, when was the last time you wrote an essay even a week in advance of the due date), and a guild leader who pushes them too hard too early will just be viewed as a dick. Having a director like that really only works when people are being paid, but this is all voluntary, and sometimes it can help to have authorities other than the guild leader forcing you to do something. Otherwise, people will get angry at the guild leader and things won't get done. You can't have slavedrivers in a voluntary competition - it has not worked before, and it will never work.

The guild moderators shouldn't force any sort of strict guidelines on the guilds. The government shouldn't tell a business how to run things, a sports league shouldn't tell teams how to train their players, and a cooking competition shouldn't tell cooks when to use certain ingredients. It's fair to leave this up to the guild leaders; just like how it would be up to the business owners, coaches, and cooks.

Nobody will view the guild leaders as dicks. The leader's guidelines are just as respectable as the moderator's guidelines, because neither are able to inflict consequences upon members. I can guarantee that people respect the guild leader's guidelines just as much as they respect the moderator's guidelines.

The upside to having the guild leaders set the guidelines is so great that it renders your plan to a pile of garbage. Not every game needs a plot. Not every game needs database setup. Not every game needs dialogue. Some games may need more attention to some aspects, and less to others. It varies from game to game, and setting these strict guidelines renders the potential number of games down to a tiny handful of uncreative games. Freedom to choose goals is freedom to create the game the guild wants to create.

Also, who the hell cares if nobody finishes? It's all for fun.

@Irock - it's also the reason why the guilds failed last time. People procrastinate when they know that nothing has to be submitted until three months from now (seriously, when was the last time you wrote an essay even a week in advance of the due date), and a guild leader who pushes them too hard too early will just be viewed as a dick. Having a director like that really only works when people are being paid, but this is all voluntary, and sometimes it can help to have authorities other than the guild leader forcing you to do something. Otherwise, people will get angry at the guild leader and things won't get done. You can't have slavedrivers in a voluntary competition - it has not worked before, and it will never work.

The guild moderators shouldn't force any sort of strict guidelines on the guilds. The government shouldn't tell a business how to run things, a sports league shouldn't tell teams how to train their players, and a cooking competition shouldn't tell cooks when to use certain ingredients. It's fair to leave this up to the guild leaders; just like how it would be up to the business owners, coaches, and cooks.

Nobody will view the guild leaders as dicks. The leader's guidelines are just as respectable as the moderator's guidelines, because neither are able to inflict consequences upon members. I can guarantee that people respect the guild leader's guidelines just as much as they respect the moderator's guidelines.

The upside to having the guild leaders set the guidelines is so great that it renders your plan to a pile of garbage. Not every game needs a plot. Not every game needs database setup. Not every game needs dialogue. Some games may need more attention to some aspects, and less to others. It varies from game to game, and setting these strict guidelines renders the potential number of games down to a tiny handful of uncreative games. Freedom to choose goals is freedom to create the game the guild wants to create.

Also, who the hell cares if nobody finishes? It's all for fun.

It's true, the goal first and foremost should be fun.

That doesn't mean this isn't competitive (though there is no pirze, except for Firerain nudes) and that the goal shouldn't be to make and complete a good game.

Your argument about the cooking competition is really the only one that applies well, and it doesn't really do that. In a cooking competition they wouldn't tell you when to use specific ingredients, but they would tell you how long you have to prepare the food. Considering that there would be several small goals you would want to reach in that amount of time in order to reach the end before time runs out. But it's up to the person cooking to figure out how to best reach those goals.

In my opinion the best approach is a middle ground between what modern algebra and Irock are suggesting. That would be ideal. But then again, I'm not competing in this and I haven't used RPG Maker in quite some time, so take my advice with a grain of salt I suppose

The government shouldn't tell a business how to run things, a sports league shouldn't tell teams how to train their players, and a cooking competition shouldn't tell cooks when to use certain ingredients.

I LOVE IRON CHEF.

ALAIS CUISINE!

Seriously, though, I think Falcon said it best with respect to deadlines and the enforcement of guild member productivity. If you know your work is due in x days, you'll probably be more motivated to get it done on time- and maybe even schedule yourself some time to do a quality job.

In a cooking competition they wouldn't tell you when to use specific ingredients, but they would tell you how long you have to prepare the food. Considering that there would be several small goals you would want to reach in that amount of time in order to reach the end before time runs out. But it's up to the person cooking to figure out how to best reach those goals.

Some dishes take longer to prepare than others. Limiting the amount of time you have to prepare a meal limits the amount of meals you can choose from. If your time limit is 1 hour, the preparation limit is 15 minutes, and the presentation time limit is 3 minutes, you couldn't make your specialty dish that takes 20 minutes to prepare, 35 minutes to cook, and 5 minutes to present. Your options would be narrowed, and may not be fit for the person or team that's making it. While you're being forced to cook within strict time limits, your opponent's specialty dish could fit right in with the limits, giving them the upper-hand. A competition with a less-specific overall time of 1 hour would allow for a variety of dishes, making the competition both fair and fun for everyone.

I would argue, respectfully, that the challenge lies partially in the time constraints. I am told that what you are suggesting is how it worked last time, and it worked poorly. Okay, let's try something else. Take what did work, kick the rest. Admittedly, easy for me to say- I wasn't here for the last one.

I do like focused...however..remember different team leaders will want to organize things however works for them. I'd say before work begins, guild leaders submit their goal arrangement, since some folks work on characters before plot, some on art direction before characters, some on game system design before anything. So leaders can work how best suits their design style, but still have goals to adhere to.

I'd say that every so often we should have some sort of "press release" in the guilds' main threads for the community to view, but that it shouldn't be required to be a specific type of release.  There should be points taken off the final judging for missing press releases.  Of course it'd have to be something new and show progress, and it'd have to be somewhat substantial, but it doesn't have to be a specific type of update. 

That way we discourage procrastination and allow guilds to set their own goals as they see fit.  It also allows guilds to keep big guns secret if they want.

I'd say that every so often we should have some sort of "press release" in the guilds' main threads for the community to view, but that it shouldn't be required to be a specific type of release.  There should be points taken off the final judging for missing press releases.  Of course it'd have to be something new and show progress, and it'd have to be somewhat substantial, but it doesn't have to be a specific type of update. 

Yes yes yes. This is totally what I'm talking about.

@graf, ok so if I understand, basically your edit was the same as Irock's method - set content goals and the guild leaders make the schedules.

IDK, I still don't see how press releases force substantial progress rather than superficial progress; when all you have to show is a small part of a project, then all you need to have done is a small part of a project. You can make a very good teaser for something that is not even close to being complete in any way, shape or form (aka Duke Nukem Forever). I am not saying that each of the goals in the focused progress model should be made public - if you have things that ought to be kept secret from the other guild(s) then they can be - the progress stuff is more specifically for the moderator to view and assess, not to be released publicly.

The problem I see is that press releases do not, and cannot require progress, which is really the only reason to want interim goals anyway. Content-based goals are not in any way different from the All or Nothing scenario, except that it requires unnecessary effort in producing useless teasers that have no evaluative function. I do not think it reduces the lure of procrastination in any substantial way.

Concerning Irock's point about the business stuff - again, business works because you pay people to do stuff for you. Voluntary things have to be run differently. And people do view guild leaders as dicks if they push them too hard; Atemu, for instance, thought Falcon was a dick for pushing her when the deadline was still far away. At a job I worked at, the elderly volunteers thought the boss was a bitch for making them count the money at the end of the day and account for discrepancies in bookkeeping. Volunteers have to be treated differently than employees with lessened expectations. That's why I think it helps to have goals external to the guild, because then you are working with the guild leader to meet the deadline, rather than working for the guild leader to meet his/her deadline.

I do, however, think you raise a good point in that not all games require all of those areas, such as plot, and so perhaps the focused progress model is too restrictive in the types of games that can be made under it. However, I think it is crucial that any deadlines we set must be ones that force substantative and not superficial progress like simple teasers would.

Maybe a better option is joy's suggestion; maybe we could give an initial 1-2 week period where the guilds make a constitution, including power structures, roles, and what have you, but which they then also submit a progress schedule that is agreed upon by the guild members (with a requirement that it is reasonable with respect to the game being made), and then that progress schedule is the one that is used as a measurement for that guild, rather than having a strict standard schedule. That way, there would be the freedom for the guilds to choose the type of project they want to work on, but also to set the schedule. The necessary freedom is thus encapsulated, but the schedule, decided internally, then becomes an external schedule that you are required to meet or else to lose points. We could also embed some freedom for altering the schedule if there were some miscalcualtions or if people leave or if it works out better to do it another way.

I mean this:

What I would want is something like this:

• Month 1 - Small game released (First build) 5%
• Month 2 - Revise and extend (Second build) 10%
• Month 3 - Revise and extend (Third build) 10%
• Month 4 - Revise and extend (Fourth build) 15%
• Month 5 - Final build (no hanging issues) %60

I don't mean to have like certain things required to release, but rather just things that get release every so often. Also, to me, it's less for the guilds as it is more for just community knowledge. Also it helps keep the guilds in line and on point knowing that certain things should be released each period. I didn't really mean to have the guild leaders make up their own thing, but rather each guild has a schedule like option 2, except instead of no releases, there will be releases like above. Again, it's just Option 2 + Releases of information every so often. I don't think that each release has to be the same as both guilds. Like, if one guild happens to have a title screen ready and story then they could release that first while the other guild only has like a story and characters. I don't really care what gets released, but I just want to involve the non-guilded community. That's my largest point. Just to keep them interested in the guilds and stuff.

Hm... one things for sure: the guilds are going to need a lot more preparation time this year before everything actually starts lol

There are a lot of good ideas here. Every one of you (even Irock ) are making several good points. I would warn that this may get too complicated. There needs to be rules and guidelines, but if there are too many then this won't be very fun.

IDK, I still don't see how press releases force substantial progress rather than superficial progress; when all you have to show is a small part of a project, then all you need to have done is a small part of a project. You can make a very good teaser for something that is not even close to being complete in any way, shape or form (aka Duke Nukem Forever).

I missed the part where it wasn't the Guild's fault if their game failed.

We're not going to by any means make a system which -forces- a game to end up finished, and keeps the competition fun rather than a chore.  We should have guidelines and such, but if a game fails, it's because the team failed, not because the system failed.

We're not doing this for a job, so forcing certain percentages of work on the guilds is going to turn it from less of a fun creative venture into more of a chore that is even -less- likely to get done.

Whatever form of release system we're making should be flexible to allow the guilds to show whatever portion of their progress they want to.  In the end the point is a finished game and fun/bringing the community together right?  Creating a syllabus is going to turn it into work. 

I understand the need for organization, but how much is really truly necessary for this?

I'm fine with something like Zeriab's idea. It's not as limiting, and it will keep the members working just as much as Modern Algebra's idea. The guild leaders can organize plans to reach the monthly goals, and they'll seem more justified than they would if we didn't have monthly goals we had to meet.

Also, as Halo said, it shouldn't get too complicated. We need to keep this fun.

Also, as NAMKCOR said, the reason the guilds failed could very well be because of the teams themselves. This is the reason GIAW mostly failed before the most recent one. NAMKCOR didn't have to change up the rules, because it's up to the members themselves to complete their games, not the overseer to ensure they're completed. It could just be a matter of who's in the competition, what's going on around them, and what their mindset is at.

You guys seem to think deadlines as adding work but I don't see how that can be the case; it is just systematically spreading the work out evenly so as to use the most of the time that is available. I agree that it should be fun, but no system suggested could or would force more work on the guilds than what is ultimately necessary to finish a project. Finishing a project takes the same amount of work whether you have interim goals or not; all having those goals does is ensure that people actually use the time to work on the project, rather than procrastinating until the last week and thereby not having to work frantically that last week or worse, not having enough time to finish at all. Worse still, if most of the members do the work they were supposed to and only one or two fail and the whole project collapses because there wasn't sufficient collaboration.

And again, I think all comparisons to GIAW fail because A) it's one week and B) it's a single designer. The guilds are so much different from that that any comparison is silly and has no analytical value whatsoever. If the guilds were only one week, I would agree that there wouldn't need to be interim goals. If the guilds were only one member each, then interim goals would also be pointless. The fact is that teamwork and a long timeframe requires a different set of rules to respond to a different set of problems. For one, there is reliance on team members over whom you have no control whatsoever, and if any one of them fail then it could end the project altogether if there aren't appropriate safeguards in place. I don't see why the guidelines and rules of the competition ought not try to address these added concerns by encouraging reasonable progress, collaboration, and reducing the impact of members leaving. I think guilds become a lot less fun when all the work you do ends up having no value because the guild leader relied on a particular member with a task and he/she failed in that.

And while it is ultimately up to the guild members whether they succeed or fail, a good institutional structure can aid people, and why shouldn't we have one?

Because, like I said;

In a cooking competition they wouldn't tell you when to use specific ingredients, but they would tell you how long you have to prepare the food. Considering that there would be several small goals you would want to reach in that amount of time in order to reach the end before time runs out. But it's up to the person cooking to figure out how to best reach those goals.

Some dishes take longer to prepare than others. Limiting the amount of time you have to prepare a meal limits the amount of meals you can choose from. If your time limit is 1 hour, the preparation limit is 15 minutes, and the presentation time limit is 3 minutes, you couldn't make your specialty dish that takes 20 minutes to prepare, 35 minutes to cook, and 5 minutes to present. Your options would be narrowed, and may not be fit for the person or team that's making it. While you're being forced to cook within strict time limits, your opponent's specialty dish could fit right in with the limits, giving them the upper-hand. A competition with a less-specific overall time of 1 hour would allow for a variety of dishes, making the competition both fair and fun for everyone.

Nobody said adding deadlines is adding work. Adding specific deadlines for several aspects of the game (plot, setup, mapping, eventing, balancing) makes it unfair (see above analogy).

Your intentions are good, but your execution is garbage. The only plan I would consider is Zeriab's. The guild leaders will analyze their own guild and set up a plan, not you. That's the only fair way. Get that through your thick fucking skull.